Thread View: comp.groupware
2 messages
2 total messages
Started by Rob Kling
Fri, 14 Aug 1992 00:22
Article - Behind the Terminal
Author: Rob Kling
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 00:22
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 00:22
81 lines
4144 bytes
4144 bytes
This is the abstract of an article which you might find of interest.
It examines the social dimesnions of implementing information systems
and office systems with ideas that are pertinent to groupware. But it
does not specialize in groupware issues. Consequently, I'm not
posting the full article on comp.groupware. I have posted the full
article on comp.society and comp.infosystems.
I will soon be giving some seminars on the web models whihc are partially
explained in this paper. Consequently, I'd appreciate any feedback.
If there is interest, I'll post an earlier, companion paper,
"Defining the Boundaries of Computing Across Complex
Organizations" in Critical Issues in Information Systems
Research. Richard Boland and Rudolf Hirschheim (eds.) John Wiley
and Sons, 1987.
Best wishes,
Rob Kling
===========================================
Behind the Terminal:
The Critical Role of Computing Infrastructure
In Effective Information Systems' Development and Use
Rob Kling
Department of Information and Computer Science
Public Policy Research Organization
University of California
Irvine, Ca 92717
714-856-5955
email:kling@ics.uci.edu
Draft 4.02
July 17, 1991 (Aug 4, 1991)
To appear in: Challenges and Strategies for Research in Systems
Development. William Cotterman and James Senn (Ed.). John Wiley,
London.
ABSTRACT
Contemporary approaches to systems analysis ignore the importance
of computing infrastructure -- the kinds of resources necessary
for making computerized system workable and effective.
Infrastructure includes "hard resources" such as electricity and
physical space; it also includes human resources such as the
skill levels of systems users and maintainer.
Systems analyses which account for infrastructure can help lead
to more effective recommendations. The key organizing ideas of
this paper, web models, are based on almost 20 years of empirical
studies of the ways that people and organizations adopt, develop
and use computerized systems. It is based on an understanding of
how people and organizations actually behave rather than upon a
model which prescribes how they should behave.
Web models draw "large" social boundaries around a focal
computing resource so that the defining situation includes: the
ecology of participants who influence the adoption and use of
computer-based technologies, the infrastructures for supporting
system development and use, and the history of local computing
developments. Web models help explain the actual leverage of
computing developments, their carrying costs, and the ways that
systems are valued by different participants. Web models are
contrasted with conventionally rational "discrete-entity" models
which are a-contextual, a-historical, and assume that adequate
infrastructure can always be available as needed.
The web approach to computing infrastructure is illustrated with
a rich longitudinal case study of the use of desktop computing in
a dynamic work group. The chapter also examines ways that
infrastructure designs influence the choice of computerized
systems which are appropriate for specific groups of users.
Acknowledgements: I've deepened my understanding of computing
infrastructure and systems development in discussions with Jon
Allen, Werner Beuschel, Joey George, Suzanne Iacono, Tom Jewett,
Matthew Jones, Kate Kaiser, John King, Kenneth Kraemer, Steve
Lepore, Geoff Walsham, and Mary Zmuidzinas. Funds for conducting
some of the research reported here came from NSF Grants
IRI8709613 and IRI9015497.
Re: Article - Behind the Terminal
Author: Paul Eggert
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 02:56
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 02:56
31 lines
2204 bytes
2204 bytes
kling@ics.uci.edu (Rob Kling) writes: >Contemporary approaches to systems analysis ignore the importance >of computing infrastructure -- the kinds of resources necessary >for making computerized system workable and effective. That's utter nonsense, of course. System analysts spend much of their time worrying about computing resources and infrastructure. I spent some time reading Kling's article, and I think I know where he went astray. If some nearby software developer asked me what kind of environment I used today, I'd probably say something like ``I used GNU and X11R5 tools under SunOS 4.1.2 on a network of Suns''. Now, there's a lot of context behind that statement, but since I'm talking to another software developer, I don't have to spell it out. It's a mistake to criticize my explanation because it ignores my computing infrastructure: the other developer already knows the context of the discussion, and it would be a waste of time for both of us for me to go into the gory details. Similarly, it's a mistake to criticize system analysts who don't consciously apply social theories to the problem of analyzing computing systems. Analysts omit social context when it's convenient, but that doesn't mean they're unaware of the context -- it only means that they have better things to do than write lengthy dissertations on subjects that are obvious to their audiences. Kling presents no evidence that his models are better than other ad hoc frameworks for describing the social context of computing. I'm not saying that system analysts never make mistakes, or that they always know their computing milieu; far from it! But Kling's theories won't give them any insights that they don't have already.
Thread Navigation
This is a paginated view of messages in the thread with full content displayed inline.
Messages are displayed in chronological order, with the original post highlighted in green.
Use pagination controls to navigate through all messages in large threads.
Back to All Threads